God has made many promises concerning the blessing he has for me. One of the promises that he has made is an incredible miracle that will affect many.... On the day, or night, that God blesses me and I reap my harvest, God will heal every child of on this earth, who suffers from any chronic or serious disease, birth defect or disability. Pediatric wards will empty and children’s hospitals will close. All will know that it is a miracle from God, and many who have turned from him will return. That is only one of the incredible promises that God has made to me.

If as you say God is a delusion, and God created humanity, then humanity is a delusion. Since you think you are human, you are a delusion and do not exist. Then why do you have a website? Whhy don't you just wink out of existence since you never was real anyway? -david

How do you know you are real and am talking to me? There is no one telling you you exist! How do you know you are even human? Are you an android who thinks you are human? why do you think? If there is no god, then evolution would never have happened and humanity is a great lie.

note: Dawin says "survival of the fittest" and that means "kill or be killed" without care to morality. Therefore you are dehumanising humanity. Of course you don't care, since you are not even human. You just look human and think you are, but you are a lie. Why don't you make friends with Freddy Kreuger and Jason Vorhees, because they think just like you? They kill for fun, why not you?

The filthy pig moron "Chilibreath" is advertising that he is an ardent practitioner of cunnilingus which is defined as the sexual stimulation of a woman by using one's tongue and lips on and or in her vagina, clitoris, vulva, labia minor and labia major. He is advertising that he is a moral midget and a stupid one at that because he is practicing behavior that has been significantly statistically linked to oral and throat cancers of those who participate in giving this pleasure to women. The vernacular expression that his swine fornicator trying to convey by his license plate is 'Muff Diver' which is the crude and vulgar expression used to describe a person who actively participates in this utterly unclean behavior. Google 'Michael Douglas cunnilingus' and you'll find this paragraph: "Most head and neck cancers are caused by tobacco and alcohol, but researchers believe that up to 80% of oropharyngeal cancers are due to HPV (human papilloma virus) infection. The cause can be confirmed by testing biopsy samples for HPV DNA. The incidence of throat cancer caused by HPV is rising rapidly (a 225% increase from 1988 to 2004) and has been attributed to an increase in oral sex. It is estimated that by 2020 HPV will cause more oropharyngeal cancers than cervical cancers in the US." For you women readers, if you are performing fellatio (vulgarly 'blow-jobs') on men then you are exposing yourself (putting yourself at risk) of contacting HPV and also of getting oropharyngeal cancer, In fact, just by kissing a man who has participated in cunnilingus on other women you are putting yourself at risk. Swine like 'Chilibreath' have the idea that you're just as stupid and vulgar of a person as he is and that you don't mind putting yourself at risk of dying a horrible death related to throat or some sort of oral cancer by practicing what is called 'oral sex' with idiots like him. When our culture descends into vulgarity the price can often be the lives of those who participate. The sexual revolution was thought to be a break away from the puritanical behavior of some of our ancestors but it turns out that they were not dying from such diseases as is now common among Millennials and some of their parents.

It is well known that the ACLU has been owned and operated by the most radical secular humanist since it's beginnings. Like the Mafia they like to contribute a good deed every now and then for the "good press"; but their ultimate goal is to institutionalize their secular humanist, world view!

You do not understand, nor believe in the power of Him. Say as a young child you are sent away to live in the wilderness. No human contact, no books, no bible, nothing. You have just learned to survive all these years. Of course this isn't your fault and our wonderful mercyful God will see that. He knows your situation and God will find you, even when you can't find Him. Sometimes it takes terrible things (not caused by him but the Devil) to make us see that. But remember ask and ye shall recieve. Walk with the Earth Mother, Praise the Heavenly Father.
2 minutes ago

King apparently made the comment at an Iowa campaign event for Huckabee on Thursday, according to Slate.

King has been stuck on the idea of people marrying his lawnmower since at least July 1, when he first made the comment, which he reiterated Thursday, the Sioux City Journal reports.

“I had a strong, Christian lawyer tell me yesterday that, under this decision that he has read, what it brings about is: It only requires one human being in this relationship — that you could marry your lawnmower with this decision. I think he’s right,” he told the Journal.

King isn’t the only Republican to assert that same-sex marriage will result in marriages between humans and non-humans, though he may be the first to predict human-outdoor appliance unions. Rick Santorum, R-PA, is concerned that same-sex marriage legalization will result on “man-on-dog” relationships.

In fact, one of the reasons given for the destruction of Sodom was the fact that the inhabitants practiced homosexuality – hence the word sodomy. It is clear that, contrary to what the GLAAD spokeswoman said, true Christians believe homosexuality to be a grave sin, and this is all that Mr. Robertson was noting. He did not call for homosexuality to be outlawed or for violence or discrimination against gays. He simply pointed out that it is neither logical (and it isn’t, even from an evolutionary point of view; homosexual behavior would have to be just about the most selected-against trait imaginable) nor moral according to Christian (and most other religious) doctrine.

But there are no bullies like queer bullies. It isn’t enough to live-and-let-live. Now you must be an enthusiastic advocate and supporter of sodomy and willing to preach the moral goodness of homosexuality or face intimidation, threats of violence, censorship, and loss of your livelihood.

3.) if we evolved...why don't we eveolve today? IN PUBLIC...why (if u still believe in the sasquach) must we do it in private, away form scientist that can record it? and don't tell me "because we are perfectly adapt and no longer need 2 evolve" because, if we came from monkey's, why don't they evolve since thier not perfectly adapt? scientist have been watching and waiting 2 c if thier lab animals will evolve rite b4 thier eyes 4 centuries and what have they got? NOTHING!! did they/ we just all the sudden decide 2 stop evolving the moment man was able 2 record it? it's stupid.

In the Western world, today’s “conservatives” are increasingly libertarian when it comes to matters of sexual morality. Whatever good might come out of a Trump Presidency (full disclosure: I voted for the man), it seems unlikely that the nation’s appreciation for the importance of sexual morality will deepen.

Increasingly in our society, the expectation for any romantic relationship is that it must be sexual or get sexual without much delay – married or not. Going hand in hand with this, political progressives and libertarians both seem basically united on the idea that the choice of each individual is the controlling principle. As some on the Supreme Court told us in 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”[i]

This kind of thinking really does not seem all that alien from what the Trump-supporting “free speech fundamentalist” Milo Yiannopoulos has said:

Read what you want.
Watch what you want.
Play what you want.
Think what you want.
Say what you want.

That might not work in a marriage, but otherwise why the hell not? (marriage couldn’t be that important anyways, could it?) Political correctness can die the death it so richly deserves! The sky is the limit!

Yiannopoulos may say that some – by virtue of biological and psychological limitations – can’t be whatever they want to be, but with his emphasis on the individual’s rights, one is hard-pressed to argue why some, at least, shouldn’t give it a shot (please note I say all of this wanting to defend free speech to, while being concerned that not all of our speech is helpful).

And, tying this back to matters of sexual morality, why suppress human nature? Yiannopoulos regularly encourages college students to not hold back in exploring their sexuality with others. And, when asked here about Harvard’s men’s soccer team this past week – namely, about their recently revealed shared Google form treating their female counterparts as sexual objects – Yiannopoulos defended them to the hilt. One might think he could have said, at the very least, that the men’s behavior was to be strongly discouraged – even if the Harvard President had overreacted (read this and this for a balanced perspective). He didn’t say this though – he simply talked about our inability to overcome human nature: basically “men will be men”.

After all, as popular You Tuber Gavin McInnes says (language alert) all men act like this. And likewise, all men must surely know that they are incapable of waiting for sex – and they must be lying if they say they do! Guys like Tim Tebow (what has he accomplished lately?) are surely hypocrites, and evidently, most of the time, just aren’t manly enough to obtain the good things that come their way, grabbing them by the….

But even if we perhaps should respect the real power of human nature here, we also cannot overcome the consequences of human nature. Even if you, by virtue of your social capital and financial resources, appear able to rise above some of the most socially deleterious effects of sexual licentiousness, many – particularly the most vulnerable – can’t. And all of this contributes to the fracturing and weakening of the family, which one would hope any conservative would understand. This glorification of our choices when it comes to matters sexual, of course, makes the goal of marriage – and the commitment involved therein – less and less of a possibility for many (listen to Jennifer Roback Morse here).

Yiannopoulos may have once written about the dangers of pornography in the past (see here and here), but these days, he seems to have left that concern behind (a necessary casualty of his message and newfound fame?). Now, ironically, it is some on the left (some!) who are bringing up the critical importance of this issue (see here and here for example). Speaking merely from a tactical standpoint, perhaps persons like Yiannopoulos should find a creative way to address this, before being outflanked by progressives concerned about the truth of these matters?

So, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution – and sophisty?! Hang on… we getting there right now….

First of all, a popular meaning of the word sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. It is a simply a matter of fact that men are capable of controlling themselves (though, if I may say, we seem to live in an age that likes to play with the fire of temptation).

Second, in the theory of evolution, all is about sex (and death): everything comes down to being able to pass on one’s genes to the next generation. Supposedly, evolution “designed” us for this.

Third, and here is the meat of my point, in a recent edition of the Atlantic, an article called “The Case Against Reality” lays out the implications of the theory of evolution (spurred on by what I call the MSTM, the modern scientific and technological mindset) in a very helpful manner. An interview with cognitive science Donald D. Hoffman is featured, where he argues that “the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses… the world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality” (as the Atlantic sums him up).

In short, Hoffman believes that “evolution itself [is] to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction” (italics mine). It is not accurate perceptions which helps us to effectively pass on our genes but “fitness functions,” i.e. “mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction.” “Suppose,” he says, “there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not… And yet the desktop is useful.”[ii] Hoffman says that this is “conscious realism,” meaning that “Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view.”

And hence, evolution’s connection with classical understandings of sophistry is complete. Perhaps Christians taken with evolution should take evolutionists like Daniel Dennet more seriously when they assert that it is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways” (see here).

The Sophists of the ancient world said that our base assumption should be that certain truth and goodness is unattainable. With change being the only constant and knowledge an illusion, everything is about building consensus through persuasion. The ethical sophist – assuming positing such a person is reasonable! – would persuade on the basis of arguing for things that are not true, but possible and perhaps probable…

How does this not sync perfectly with what Hoffman is saying, a “match made in heaven,” or hell, as the case may be? Can’t he – or anyone else – see the implications of this thinking for human reason itself?

Let’s break it down:

In brief, Hoffman, assuming temporal survival is what life is all about, says that it is our “fitness functions,” and not accurate perceptions, which help us to pass on our genes.
Therefore, it follows that being able to create grand, plausible sounding theories – whether they are true or not – also can be reduced to being about the survival value they have (in that they attract partners who know brains are valuable – and who can pass on genes).
Therefore, as long as one can avoid the impression one is totally disconnected from matters of concrete fact, disqualifying one’s self in other’s eyes, the sky is the limit!
As Hoffman says, our perceptions are “tuned to fitness, but not to truth”. Why would our capacity to construct narratives, our story-telling imaginations, not be as well? Why would this also not figure into the all controlling “fitness function”?
So, if this is the case, why believe the theory of evolution is true at all? It might be useful for passing on genes, but true?

And yet, of course, what Hoffman is doing in his interview – what he cannot avoid doing even if he might protest he is doing it – is putting forth a truth claim. Truth, in one sense, is “driven to extinction,” where, in another, it rises from the ashes reborn. “Believe me,” he is saying… “I am speaking with some real authority on these matters.” The ancient sophists played the same game… the truth is that we cannot not really know truth… what is important is that you listen to me, noticing how smart I am…

And so, as evolution and truth evolves, so does “our” (Not mine! Not yours I hope!) understanding of individuality, sex, and gender.

To state the obvious, given his assumptions, is that not just his “fitness function” speaking? And if he opposes me socially and politically and I fight back, evidently with my own fitness function that still falsely believes there is truth, just what hope for common ground do we now have?

I’m calling B.S. I’m calling out these new sophists for the danger to society and culture that they are. Absolute. Total. Nonsense.

If you read my post you'd see that I commended him for exactly that. Anyways, yes it fucking DOES make him less Canadian, not everyone buys into the "magic soil" argument, British and French men and women built this country. I could never move to China and become "Chinese" so why can he move here and become "Canadian"? I bet you think a Somali can move to France and become French or Britain and become British. You know why your line of thinking is dying? Because it offers nothing in return for the displacement, disenfranchisement, and alienation of globalization pushed by elites who want to strip people of their national, racial, religious, etc. , identities (ESPECIALLY if you're a (fucking white) male), except for the "in-group feels" of being yet another useless, parroting beta liberal hipster trash waste. But you get to have the "high class morals and values", and be on the "right side of history". No thanks.

[Err - we use the same currency you do. We are still Americans - and being atheists doesn't make us pigs. Or liberals. Or terrorists - and certainly not Muslims.]

Then stop acting like it. Of course, you'll hold your nose and use our currency - little hypocrite. Somehow, God never troubles an atheist when money is involved.

The fact you're an atheist doesn't mean the rest of this country has to change to make you feel better about being a selfish pig. Now find the rock you were under after your previous post in December of 2002 and crawl back under it.

Michelle Duggar, star of TLC's reality show, "19 Kids and Counting", says there needs to be more children because our world needs more joy. And as for overpopulation? That's just a lie, Duggar recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network in a web interview. "The idea of overpopulation is not accurate," Duggar says, because the entire population of the world could fit inside of Jacksonville, Florida.

"I agree with Mother Teresa when she said, 'to say that there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers,'" Duggar said.

Q:Does anyone know if there is any oppressed people groups today in the world?

I need to do a report about a group of people that are being mistreated today in the world. Who are the people being oppressed? What is happening? Who is mistreating them? Why is this happening? Whats being done to help this problem?

A: Christians are by the rest of the world. Imagine if you will a young Caucasian boy kneeling in front of your high school in prayer with his hands clasped in front of him. He wouldn't last 5 min in most states before a teacher asked him to stop.
Now take an Asian kid sitting Indian style with his hands on his knees doing that OK symbol and he could stay there all day long praying to Buddha and no one would care.